Why Simis was Third String.

[UMGriz75]

I'm the one who said they look for the best, and settle for who they can recruit.
Not what you said at all, you said "they get who they get" which is neither the same nor accurate

I get it, "they get who they get" is NOT the same as "settling for whom they can recruit."

You need to post more on these "lessons in logic."

 

[UMGriz75]

Did you even read the post. Not sure anywhere I state that all recruits work out, what I did state was that a coach looks for certain traits and skills in a player and from this group of players he recruits. He recruits kids that he believes can be the type of player he wants. He doesn't leave it to fate and then try to make it work. I am guessing if he recruited the kid, then he saw something that made him believe the kid could play, whether the kid actually pans out is an entirely different argument, because if you haven't noticed, no coach hits on 100% of the kids they recruit, but they all saw something in that kid to believe he could.

Is there anything here that I haven't repeatedly said?

Youre' the guy claiming that "Stitt will fix it with his own recruits," and I'm the guy asking, "How?" and pointing out that it's just not that easy.

Stitt was at CSU for 15 years. Posters have claimed that Stitt will have "his own team" in place in 2, 3 or 4 years and that "things will change." Well, I hope they do, but the statement is just meaningless on its own merits.

Take the last 10 years at CSM. He surely had exactly "his own team in place," by then, and everything after that was all on the backs of his own recruits.

His overall record, 2004-2014 was 0.67. His record varied, overall, from 0.36 to 0.92. In his second and third years, 2001-2002, when he was still arguably working with the talent he had inherited, he was 0.64. In 2003, his first year of realistically having his "own" talent, he was 0.50.

In Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference play, his overall record was 0.74, but it varied from 0.29 to 1.00.

Both of his best years in both of those series were in 2005. In the most recent three years, Stitt's record varied from 0.44 to 0.89 in conference.

But for some questionable decisions in Cal Poly and Weber, we'd be beating Stitt's ten year averages already at UM by considerable margins, without Stitt's own recruits.

There is no evidence that anything here falls on the backs of the players, and can be solved by the "recruits." It may be true, there is just no evidence of it.

By Stitt's own standards, the UM Griz represents a talented team.

 

[kemajic]

Lets play with the whole deck. We had 69 plays against UND so you suggest that was key to the result. We had 71 plays against Liberty, 72 plays against Weber, including OT and 64 plays against PSU, all losses. Our wins average 83 plays and our losses average 75 plays. No coincidences; where is your point?

Well, these looked odd to me, so I spot-checked PSU.

UM's report on the PSU game shows 83 offensive plays.

If you are just making numbers up to argue, let's just not. If its just a slip-up, please check the numbers.

It was a slip-up; wrong column; 64 plays for PSU. So what does that change - 79.5 plays in losing games; 83.2 plays in winning games. Still no correlation that supports your contention. No need to make up numbers to dispute your argument.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Did you even read the post. Not sure anywhere I state that all recruits work out, what I did state was that a coach looks for certain traits and skills in a player and from this group of players he recruits. He recruits kids that he believes can be the type of player he wants. He doesn't leave it to fate and then try to make it work. I am guessing if he recruited the kid, then he saw something that made him believe the kid could play, whether the kid actually pans out is an entirely different argument, because if you haven't noticed, no coach hits on 100% of the kids they recruit, but they all saw something in that kid to believe he could.

Is there anything here that I haven't repeatedly said?

Youre' the guy claiming that "Stitt will fix it with his own recruits," and I'm the guy asking, "How?" and pointing out that it's just not that easy.

Stitt was at CSU for 15 years. Posters have claimed that Stitt will have "his own team" in place in 2, 3 or 4 years and that "things will change." Well, I hope they do, but the statement is just meaningless on its own merits.

Take the last 10 years at CSM. He surely had exactly "his own team in place," by then, and everything after that was all on the backs of his own recruits.

His overall record, 2004-2014 was 0.67. His record varied, overall, from 0.36 to 0.92. In his second and third years, 2001-2002, when he was still arguably working with the talent he had inherited, he was 0.64. In 2003, his first year of realistically having his "own" talent, he was 0.50.

In Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference play, his overall record was 0.74, but it varied from 0.29 to 1.00.

Both of his best years in both of those series were in 2005. In the most recent three years, Stitt's record varied from 0.44 to 0.89 in conference.

But for some questionable decisions in Cal Poly and Weber, we'd be beating Stitt's ten year averages already at UM by considerable margins, without Stitt's own recruits.

There is no evidence that anything here falls on the backs of the players, and can be solved by the "recruits." It may be true, there is just no evidence that this coach creates winning teams solely by dint of "recruits".

By Stitt's own standards, the UM Griz represents a talented team.

75, actually I said that I would reserve judgement until Stitt has the opportunity to mix his recruits in, and did not say that would be an automatic fix. Also, what happened in the first few years at CSM has absolutely no influence on what is happening currently, 2 completely different situations. As for Stitt's own standards, do you have these Stitt standards that you can share with everyone or is this the assumed Stitt standard that you came up with by crunching numbers? As for what is currently an outcome based on talent and players as opposed to coaching, we will know soon enough after Stitt gets more of his recruits into the program.

 

[UMGriz75]

It was a slip-up; wrong column; 64 plays for PSU. So what does that change - 79.5 plays in losing games; 83.2 plays in winning games. Still no correlation that supports your contention. No need to make up numbers to dispute your argument.

Plenty of correlation. You point to games lost and low numbers of plays, and try to equate equivalence to a game with "low" numbers and an outstanding win.

The fact is a good defense by an opponent can lower play numbers and lose the game.

The fact is that a well designed offense, with high conversion efficiency and taking the time to get everyone on the same page, can lower play numbers and win the game.

There is no correlation between different outcomes because the fundamental reasons for the outcomes are different. There is a correlation between similar results, because the fundamental reasons are the same. That's what you just proved.

Stitt's "basic offense" at CSM the past few years -- high numbers, quick plays -- produced an average of two fumbles a game (with Stitt's own recruited players, no less!). Both Makena and Brady increased fumbles and interceptions attempting the high number, quick play games. That correlates with Stitt's experience at CSM, and is independent of whether or not the players are "his" recruits or not, they are correlated with the strategy, but not with the players.

 

[UMGriz75]

[ As for Stitt's own standards, do you have these Stitt standards that you can share with everyone or is this the assumed Stitt standard that you came up with by crunching numbers? As for what is currently an outcome based on talent and players as opposed to coaching, we will know soon enough after Stitt gets more of his recruits into the program.

Defn: Standard: a level of quality or attainment.

We have a well developed record of Stitt as an early coach, as a coach working with other people's recruits, a coach in transition, and a long record of working with his own recruits. Stitt has well defined record of "attainment" on those metrics. It is not an "assumed standard." It is the "actual standard." It gives lie to the claim that "his recruits" will somehow propel the Grizzlies to heights heretofore unreached because "his recruits" have demonstrably made a substantial positive difference in the past.

They haven't.

We are nearly right at where Stitt has been in the past, when all he had were his own recruits, year after year. Now, you can "imagine" things would be different, but that's all it is, imagination. There is no factual basis for it. And it may come true. There is just no factual basis to support it.

 

[kemajic]

The fact is that a well designed offense, with high conversion efficiency and taking the time to get everyone on the same page, can lower play numbers and win the game..

You offer one game (UND) to support this. A horrible pass defense that allowed numerous big plays. There is such a thing as "a well designed offense, with high conversion efficiency" with high play numbers that wins games. That doesn't necessarily require numerous big plays to win.

 

[Grizzle Tech]

I think more than not being "coachable" or not mentally understanding how to go through a progression is the fact that Simis seems to get nervous when the bullets start flying at him. Some of that comfort in the pocket comes naturally, but it also comes from reps and game experience.

 

[UMGriz75]

You offer one game (UND) to support this. A horrible pass defense that allowed numerous big plays.

If the pass defense was so horrible, then UM could have pursued the "4th Q strategy" with great ease, had plenty of plays, experimented with lots of fast action, and still won the game right?

It wasn't the "pass defense."

If what you say is true, then we must have won against Cal Poly, the worst pass defense in the conference, at home, with Brady at the controls, because of 92 plays, a record 15:53 seconds per play, a classic example of the Stitt strategy, using his acknowledged "Basic strategy," and ---- yielding 3 fumbles, 35% conversion of 3rd downs, 0% conversion of 4th downs despite 3 tries, only 8.8 yds passing, 3 interceptions by the worst pass defense team in the conference, Ellis/Jones reduced to an anemic 9.5 yds per carry against the worst pass defense in the conference.

And we only put up 19 points on 353 yds passing
. Against the worst pass defense in the conference!

Yet, against UND, a better pass defense team than Cal Poly, UM used only 69 plays, using 22:53 seconds per play, with no fumbles, a 46% conversion on third downs, 50% conversion on 4th downs, 19.2 yards per pass completion, no interceptions by the better passing defense team, and Ellis/Jones producing season high 36 yds per carry against the better passing team defense, putting up 42 points on 328 passing yards against a better passing defense team than Cal Poly.

One game used the classic Stitt strategy (he has said so) and the better QB (some say so) against the worst passing defense team.

The other game used the non-Stitt strategy ( a simplified, slowed down offense), the 3rd string QB (some say for a reason), against a passing defense team that was NOT the worst in the conference.

How did Brady get only 62% pass conversion against the worst passing defense team in the conference, whereas Makena converted 71% of passes against the NOT worst passing defense team in the conference?

One game, Cal Poly, required 18.6 yds passing to score a single point, resulting ultimately in 3 fumbles and 3 interceptions against the worst passing defense team in the conference and a loss scoring only 19 points.

The other game, UND, required 7.9 passing yards per point scored, with no fumbles and no interceptions, and produced the outstanding WR performances of the year, and a win with the Griz' highest point score of the season.

Same coach. Different strategies, Different QB. Do you argue that the coach made the difference, the game strategies, or the QB?

Or was it all the "horrible pass defense" that the Griz encountered in one game and not the other? And how does the worst pass defense in the conference get 3 fumbles and 3 interceptions out the Stitt strategy and keep a passing QB to just 19 points?

At some point, it has to make sense. "Magic" isn't a useful analytical tool.

 

[Umista]

After reading this entire third string thread I am not sure what to think. Am I a happy Griz or a sad sack Griz?

Do I campaign to get rid of Stitt?

Do I ask Haslam to give him a raise?

Should the students strike to remove Royce Engstrom?

Do I try to meet Growler/Atlanta around high noon for a shootout at the Mo Club?

Will I be allowed in Wa Griz after reading all of the stats and ideas as stated in this thread?

Will this wordy thread self destruct? Perhaps more fruit should be eaten to eliminate the bloated belly of some?

 

[BillingsMafia]

I understand why Simis was 3rd string. Although he has the physical skills to perform, I don't think he responds well to coaching. The widespread criticism that he consistently looks down his primary receiver and refuses to, or can't, find secondarys, was true in Spring scrimmages and in his most recent game against ISU. Zero progress. Although more mobile than Gus and and bigger than Chad, he hasn't demonstrated the ability to run unless it's an open field. The ISU game featured him on the read option in the opening series, with mixed results. After two fumbles and an interception, Stitt met Simis on the sideline and "chewed" vigorously. I thought it well deserved, but Simis didn't respond the way a confident, competitive QB should have. Upon his return he played even more tentatively. Andrew Selle, QB coach? needs to intercede and get this young man "leveled out" emotionally and convince him to abandon his bad habits and to aggressively seize the opportunity he's been given.

I did not like the ass chewing Stitts gave Simis last Saturday. Its the first time I've had a problem with Stitts. I think having Selle intercede is a great idea and hope this threat gets read.

Why can Stitt not get mad at a kid who isnt performing?

Its not getting mad-- its the in your face ass chewing on TV. It shows no class and will create a bobcat like attitude amoung the players.

 

[kemajic]

You offer one game (UND) to support this. A horrible pass defense that allowed numerous big plays.

If the pass defense was so horrible, then UM could have pursued the "4th Q strategy" with great ease, had plenty of plays, experimented with lots of fast action, and still won the game right?

It wasn't the "pass defense."

If what you say is true, then we must have won against Cal Poly, the worst pass defense in the conference, at home, with Brady at the controls, because of 92 plays, a record 15:53 seconds per play, a classic example of the Stitt strategy, using his acknowledged "Basic strategy," and ---- yielding 3 fumbles, 35% conversion of 3rd downs, 0% conversion of 4th downs despite 3 tries, only 8.8 yds passing, 3 interceptions by the worst pass defense team in the conference, Ellis/Jones reduced to an anemic 9.5 yds per carry against the worst pass defense in the conference.

And we only put up 19 points on 353 yds passing
. Against the worst pass defense in the conference!

Yet, against UND, a better pass defense team than Cal Poly, UM used only 69 plays, using 22:53 seconds per play, with no fumbles, a 46% conversion on third downs, 50% conversion on 4th downs, 19.2 yards per pass completion, no interceptions by the better passing defense team, and Ellis/Jones producing season high 36 yds per carry against the better passing team defense, putting up 42 points on 328 passing yards against a better passing defense team than Cal Poly.

One game used the classic Stitt strategy (he has said so) and the better QB (some say so) against the worst passing defense team.

The other game used the non-Stitt strategy ( a simplified, slowed down offense), the 3rd string QB (some say for a reason), against a passing defense team that was NOT the worst in the conference.

How did Brady get only 62% pass conversion against the worst passing defense team in the conference, whereas Makena converted 71% of passes against the NOT worst passing defense team in the conference?

One game, Cal Poly, required 18.6 yds passing to score a single point, resulting ultimately in 3 fumbles and 3 interceptions against the worst passing defense team in the conference and a loss scoring only 19 points.

The other game, UND, required 7.9 passing yards per point scored, with no fumbles and no interceptions, and produced the outstanding WR performances of the year, and a win with the Griz' highest point score of the season.

Same coach. Different strategies, Different QB. Do you argue that the coach made the difference, the game strategies, or the QB?

Or was it all the "horrible pass defense" that the Griz encountered in one game and not the other? And how does the worst pass defense in the conference get 3 fumbles and 3 interceptions out the Stitt strategy and keep a passing QB to just 19 points?

At some point, it has to make sense. "Magic" isn't a useful analytical tool.

And all this time I thought PR was the master of circular arguments. You outdo him by a mile. I am worn down and done.

 

[UMGriz75]

And all this time I thought PR was the master of circular arguments. You outdo him by a mile. I am worn down and done.

You are what you critique. Firstly, the fact that people disagree with you based on fact is not 'circular arguments." Rather, you can't meet them. It is Dunning-Kruger syndrome, fully arrived on egriz threads. Ellis and Jamal did not achieve season historic highs because of "circular arguments." They did it because the QB could throw.

 

[FCSwatcher]

Did you even read the post. Not sure anywhere I state that all recruits work out, what I did state was that a coach looks for certain traits and skills in a player and from this group of players he recruits. He recruits kids that he believes can be the type of player he wants. He doesn't leave it to fate and then try to make it work. I am guessing if he recruited the kid, then he saw something that made him believe the kid could play, whether the kid actually pans out is an entirely different argument, because if you haven't noticed, no coach hits on 100% of the kids they recruit, but they all saw something in that kid to believe he could.

Is there anything here that I haven't repeatedly said?

Youre' the guy claiming that "Stitt will fix it with his own recruits," and I'm the guy asking, "How?" and pointing out that it's just not that easy.

Stitt was at CSU for 15 years. Posters have claimed that Stitt will have "his own team" in place in 2, 3 or 4 years and that "things will change." Well, I hope they do, but the statement is just meaningless on its own merits.

Take the last 10 years at CSM. He surely had exactly "his own team in place," by then, and everything after that was all on the backs of his own recruits.

His overall record, 2004-2014 was 0.67. His record varied, overall, from 0.36 to 0.92. In his second and third years, 2001-2002, when he was still arguably working with the talent he had inherited, he was 0.64. In 2003, his first year of realistically having his "own" talent, he was 0.50.

In Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference play, his overall record was 0.74, but it varied from 0.29 to 1.00.

Both of his best years in both of those series were in 2005. In the most recent three years, Stitt's record varied from 0.44 to 0.89 in conference.

But for some questionable decisions in Cal Poly and Weber, we'd be beating Stitt's ten year averages already at UM by considerable margins, without Stitt's own recruits.

There is no evidence that anything here falls on the backs of the players, and can be solved by the "recruits." It may be true, there is just no evidence of it.

By Stitt's own standards, the UM Griz represents a talented team.

Nice summary

 

[Stanley]

Did you even read the post. Not sure anywhere I state that all recruits work out, what I did state was that a coach looks for certain traits and skills in a player and from this group of players he recruits. He recruits kids that he believes can be the type of player he wants. He doesn't leave it to fate and then try to make it work. I am guessing if he recruited the kid, then he saw something that made him believe the kid could play, whether the kid actually pans out is an entirely different argument, because if you haven't noticed, no coach hits on 100% of the kids they recruit, but they all saw something in that kid to believe he could.

Is there anything here that I haven't repeatedly said?

Youre' the guy claiming that "Stitt will fix it with his own recruits," and I'm the guy asking, "How?" and pointing out that it's just not that easy.

Stitt was at CSU for 15 years. Posters have claimed that Stitt will have "his own team" in place in 2, 3 or 4 years and that "things will change." Well, I hope they do, but the statement is just meaningless on its own merits.

Take the last 10 years at CSM. He surely had exactly "his own team in place," by then, and everything after that was all on the backs of his own recruits.

His overall record, 2004-2014 was 0.67. His record varied, overall, from 0.36 to 0.92. In his second and third years, 2001-2002, when he was still arguably working with the talent he had inherited, he was 0.64. In 2003, his first year of realistically having his "own" talent, he was 0.50.

In Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference play, his overall record was 0.74, but it varied from 0.29 to 1.00.

Both of his best years in both of those series were in 2005. In the most recent three years, Stitt's record varied from 0.44 to 0.89 in conference.

But for some questionable decisions in Cal Poly and Weber, we'd be beating Stitt's ten year averages already at UM by considerable margins, without Stitt's own recruits.

There is no evidence that anything here falls on the backs of the players, and can be solved by the "recruits." It may be true, there is just no evidence of it.

By Stitt's own standards, the UM Griz represents a talented team.

Nice summary

I'm reluctant to violate the unwritten policy of never agreeing, or giving credit when it's due.
However your impressive analysis supports your conclusion in a very compelling fashion.

 

[ddmann]

After reading this thread and suffering through the "arrested" thread I thank Chris for having the foresight when setting up this forum to allow members to "foe" certain posters. I am surprised at how long my list is, and yet it makes reading this forum so much more pleasant.

 

[griz5700]

I understand why Simis was 3rd string. Although he has the physical skills to perform, I don't think he responds well to coaching. The widespread criticism that he consistently looks down his primary receiver and refuses to, or can't, find secondarys, was true in Spring scrimmages and in his most recent game against ISU. Zero progress. Although more mobile than Gus and and bigger than Chad, he hasn't demonstrated the ability to run unless it's an open field. The ISU game featured him on the read option in the opening series, with mixed results. After two fumbles and an interception, Stitt met Simis on the sideline and "chewed" vigorously. I thought it well deserved, but Simis didn't respond the way a confident, competitive QB should have. Upon his return he played even more tentatively. Andrew Selle, QB coach? needs to intercede and get this young man "leveled out" emotionally and convince him to abandon his bad habits and to aggressively seize the opportunity he's been given.

I did not like the ass chewing Stitts gave Simis last Saturday. Its the first time I've had a problem with Stitts. I think having Selle intercede is a great idea and hope this threat gets read.

Why can Stitt not get mad at a kid who isnt performing?

Its not getting mad-- its the in your face ass chewing on TV. It shows no class and will create a bobcat like attitude amoung the players.

L O L !!

You guys with this Simis infatuation are funny.

Stitt should have ripped Simis apart the second he started to back talk and defend himself.

Don't be soft, ladies.